首页> 外文期刊>Journal of medical Internet research >Methods and Evaluation Criteria for Apps and Digital Interventions for Diabetes Self-Management: Systematic Review
【24h】

Methods and Evaluation Criteria for Apps and Digital Interventions for Diabetes Self-Management: Systematic Review

机译:糖尿病自我管理的应用和数字干预方法和评估标准:系统评价

获取原文
       

摘要

Background There is growing evidence that apps and digital interventions have a positive impact on diabetes self-management. Standard self-management for patients with diabetes could therefore be supplemented by apps and digital interventions to increase patients’ skills. Several initiatives, models, and frameworks suggest how health apps and digital interventions could be evaluated, but there are few standards for this. And although there are many methods for evaluating apps and digital interventions, a more specific approach might be needed for assessing digital diabetes self-management interventions. Objective This review aims to identify which methods and criteria are used to evaluate apps and digital interventions for diabetes self-management, and to describe how patients were involved in these evaluations. Methods We searched CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Science for articles published from 2015 that referred to the evaluation of apps and digital interventions for diabetes self-management and involved patients in the evaluation. We then conducted a narrative qualitative synthesis of the findings, structured around the included studies’ quality, methods of evaluation, and evaluation criteria. Results Of 1681 articles identified, 31 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A total of 7 articles were considered of high confidence in the evidence. Apps were the most commonly used platform for diabetes self-management (18/31, 58%), and type 2 diabetes (T2D) was the targeted health condition most studies focused on (12/31, 38%). Questionnaires, interviews, and user-group meetings were the most common methods of evaluation. Furthermore, the most evaluated criteria for apps and digital diabetes self-management interventions were cognitive impact, clinical impact, and usability. Feasibility and security and privacy were not evaluated by studies considered of high confidence in the evidence. Conclusions There were few studies with high confidence in the evidence that involved patients in the evaluation of apps and digital interventions for diabetes self-management. Additional evaluation criteria, such as sustainability and interoperability, should be focused on more in future studies to provide a better understanding of the effects and potential of apps and digital interventions for diabetes self-management.
机译:背景日益增长的证据表明,应用和数字干预措施对糖尿病自我管理产生积极影响。因此,糖尿病患者的标准自我管理可以通过应用和数字干预措施来补充,以增加患者的技能。若干举措,模型和框架建议如何评估健康的应用程序和数字干预措施,但这几乎没有标准。虽然有许多用于评估应用和数字干预的方法,但可能需要更具体的方法来评估数字糖尿病自我管理干预措施。目的旨在确定用于评估糖尿病自我管理的应用和数字干预的方法和标准,并描述患者如何参与这些评估。方法搜索2015年从2015年出版的文章中搜索Cinahl,Embase,Medline和Web,提到了对糖尿病自我管理的应用和数字干预措施的评估,并参与评估患者。然后,我们对调查结果进行了叙事定性合成,围绕着包括的研究质量,评估方法和评估标准构成。结果为1681篇文章,31条符合纳入标准。共有7篇文章被认为是对证据的高度信心。应用程序是最常用的糖尿病自我管理平台(18/31,58%),2型糖尿病(T2D)是靶向健康状况,大多数研究重点(12/31,38%)。问卷,访谈和用户组会议是最常见的评估方法。此外,最评价的应用和数字糖尿病自我管理干预的标准是认知影响,临床影响和可用性。没有通过对证据的高信心被认为的研究进行评估的可行性和安全和隐私。结论很少有关于涉及患者在评估应用和数字干预患者的糖尿病自我管理的证据的令人信心的研究。额外的评估标准,例如可持续性和互操作性,应更加注重未来的研究,以便更好地了解应用程序和数字干预糖尿病自我管理的应用和数字干预措施。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号